Day time lights research flawed, say BMF

These are the front page News Items. Only Club members can add news items to this forum.
Locked
Eamonn Townsend

Day time lights research flawed, say BMF

Post by Eamonn Townsend »

Research commissioned by the European Commission that has found in favour of motorcar Day-Time Running Lights (DRLs), does not 'employ a consistent method', and so is scientifically fatally flawed say the British Motorcyclists Federation.

The news that next year all European motor vehicle manufactures will be fitting DRLs on all new cars has been greeted with alarm by the BMF who say that the research study (on which the motor vehicle manufacturers decision is based) by Koornstra et al 1997*1, simply reworks the data that had already been evaluated by 24 existing studies.

The new study's claim that the 'evaluations have been reviewed and/or re-analysed in order to obtain unbiased, and comparably defined, intrinsic DRL safety-effects', is misleading. All it has done is confuse an already confusing situation say the BMF.

Long opposed to the fitting of DRLs to motorcycles, the BMF say that nowhere in the world has their effectiveness in reducing accidents ever been proven. The practice of motorcycles using dipped headlights in day time is a common practice, but there is no proof of their efficacy either. In fact say the BMF, what research has shown is that the speed of approach of a motorcycle with headlight on is far more difficult to assess than one without its light on.

While the BMF accept that a DRL causes less glare than a dipped headlight, the BMF were successful in 1983 in getting the then government Transport Minister, Lynda Chalker, to drop plans to make DRLs compulsory on motorcycles and also succeed in getting the Advertising Standards Authority to force Lucas Industries to withdraw adverts for DRLs on the grounds that their safety benefits were not proven.

Acting on flawed research is crazy say the BMF. It will put up vehicle production costs, vehicle fuel consumption will increase and any perceived benefit that motorcycles now have will be negated by all vehicles having DRLs. This is yet another of those 'good ideas' that crop up now and again without serious debate.

Commenting, BMF Chief Executive Simon Wilkinson said: "At present riders have a choice on whether to use lights or not, but compulsory use of DRLs is a whole new ball-game that needs proper debate and research.

In fact we have yet to see evidence of the effectiveness of DRLs in reducing accidents either between vehicles or between vehicles and pedestrians. Our concern is that with all vehicles showing DRLs, the powered two wheeler, with a smaller frontal area, will now be put at a more disadvantageous position in mixed approaching traffic.'



Notes:

1 The 1997 study in question, by Professor Matthijs Koornstra and his colleagues of the Dutch institute SWOV, is a re-analysis of the data of 24 earlier studies. The Koornstra team claimed: 'In this study, all existing (24) independent DRL-evaluations have been reviewed and/or re-analysed in order to obtain unbiased, and comparably defined, intrinsic DRL-safety-effects while estimating statistical uncertainties in an optimal way.'
2 Stephen Prower, BMF research officer comments: "The effects were not `comparably defined'. In particular in Sweden, Koornstra and his colleagues re-analysed summer and winter data separately, but in Norway, they did so together. Only thereby did they certainly achieve, in both countries, the expected reduction of accidents from DRLs. Vice versa, the Swedish finding was uncertain, or the Norwegian data did not reveal the expected summer and winter pattern of reduction of accidents."

Locked